RollBack...geez...they got me too...

Yup, the most important lesson to be taken away from this Rx disaster is the importance of frequent image backups! While I too suffered a like disaster using Rx I was fortunate to have a backup image which restored my system perfectly. I have since abandoned Rx for SD and although SD has never brought about any catastrophic event, I believe they will eventually happen to many of us, so frequent image backups are now a 'religion' I live by!

 

That was my exact experience too. Everything started out well. I felt like a god in that I could rollback to previous configurations and that created the illusion of being able to rapidly uninstall stuff. But shortly thereafter I started having some minor issues that I'd never experienced before. They were directly attributable to RBRX and I was disappointed. Too good to be true.

Since messing with RBRX out of its own environment (like w/Linux recovery disc) is not a good idea, I believe the RBRX engineers should be disabling (or providing modified versions of) Windows' disk utilities. CHKDSK being a perfect example as demonstrated in this thread. Since RBRX is so dependent on it's internal sector maps, something needs to be done to protect them much better. It is of my opinion this product is still in beta stages and it'll be a while before it's ready for prime time.

One other note: I've been getting away (slowly but surely) from pro data recovery operations. Focusing on prevention is a much better and more rewarding option. You do this aspect right and you don't lose any data. Period!

 

Thats why I was trying to update. The version that was currently on my drive was filling up my drive space and I was not doing anything (adding more files, etc.)! So I was trying to update in hopes that the 10/28 version would fix that disk space filling up the issue. Instead of just ruined my computer.

 

Thanks Dr. Froggy! I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.

I wish I could have stopped chkdsk before it ran automatically. I probably would not be in this mess. But the only way I could have stopped it would have been to shut the computer down in the middle of whatever it was doing which probably would have made things worse. Kinda like watching a doctor operate on your kid...Helpless...at the mercy of Microsoft.

 

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/how-to-recover-chk-files-created-by-chkdsk-and-scandisk/

Well guys? Can anybody tell me if these will help me (undo OR reverse chkdsk)...if I cannot access my last working baseline taken a few days before the crash?

And yes...After I get back up and working again, I get it. Backup, backup, backup and oh yeah don't forget to backup!

 

Why not? - if you can't access your baseline via booting up into WinPE/Linux as suggested earlier, I don't see what more you have to lose by trying. But it would be wise to make an image backup before rearranging the disk any further!

 

No. They will not. They may discover the file extension for common files, but not the complete name. And of course running these would be making changes to the disk structure and overwriting information a forensic analysis would recover. Information that'd be used to rebuild the disk back to a certain point in time.

This..

 

Looking at the folders most of filenames seem to be intact (within the folders), however the directory names, the original directory names are really what's messed up...in addition to 80 gigs missing.

Does anybody know if these programs work to restore the directory names...or have something that works better?

Thanks

 

Man...RBRX had me fooled. I thought the listed baseline WAS a snapshot! I guess that's why when I open up scavenger and try to open up the last working baseline (aka what I thought was the first...then subsequent, scheduled, junior snapshots) it keeps showing my current drive (condition) with the chkdsk scrambled directories! How useless is that in an emergency?! Geez...

 

These programs don't do anything to recover directory names.

 

Active@ Partition Recovery can preview/restore the disk structure of the RollbackRX snapshots when the feature "SuperScan" is used.
http://www.partition-recovery.com/doc_superscan.html

Panagiotis

 

I wonder how Active@ Partition Recovery will handle the snapshot encryption? It would be an interesting test to make a basic RBRX partition and a few snapshots. Then copy a file from USB into one of the snapshots and see if A@PR can find the file, retrieve it, and save it to another disk.

Maybe it will be useful for uncovering that other 80GB chunk of data?

ADDED:
I asked the wife's friend (whom has RBRX installed) to make a simple text file, save it in a snapshot, then rollback to a previous snapshot, then scan the disk with several utilities to see if any traces can be found. I personally have doubts because of how RBRX does its thing, but stranger things have happened!

 

Rick, the tool mentioned by Panagiotis above is available on the BOOT disk you currently have... can't hurt to give it a try.

 

Stranger things do happen. So I hear. Active@ was reported to have been able to pull a test file out of a snapshot. Not having conducted the test myself I don't know all the specifics. Don't know if the snapshot was the active one. But it was definitely not baseline.

UPDATE:
I had her rerun the test, being very specific, and leaving nothing ambiguous.

Create RBRX volume.
Create a snapshot.
Create another snapshot. Copy a text file from USB key to snapshot.
Create another snapshot.
Restore to baseline.
Delete two snapshots leaving the one with the copied file intact.
Run Active@ SuperScan.
Run Zero Assumption Data Recovery.
Find the textfile's filename with each recovery program, and copy the file back to USB key.
Examine file = scrambled or garbage or non-relevant contents from baseline.

So to pull a file out and copy it back to a USB key? Apparently not. While Active@ SuperScan recovered filenames, it did not recover file contents. The contents were either scrambled or encrypted. Zero Assumption Data Recovery showed the same thing too.

 

Can you tell me more what how to use it properly, so I don't screw it up ...thanks buddy...

 

It can see some of the structure, names, trees, sizes. It isn't seeing the data associated with any one specific filename.

 

I have been thinking about HDS and its very deceptive marketing,,,,,anyone think there may be a class action lawsuit here? There are many who have been left high and dry by HDS and Rx,,,,sure does not live up to the claims HDS makes for the app.

Just wondering,,,,,,

 

Hi bgoodman4

Perhaps, but I would think it would be wise to review HDS EULA. Not sure this kind of action would solve much, and although I do understand the frustration, and agree that their marketing definitely does not live up to real world experience many users have been having since v 10.--- has been released, let alone the failure of their "gold support" to truly offer that level of support, on those issues alone their *may* be a case. At the very least, a suit of this nature would at best get their attention, but not necessarily solve anything. I am not a RBRX customer as I always thought their pricing was bloated, and their support lacking, but I am familiar with how their app works and have used it in its early stages years ago, but it appears to me their main focus is NOT people like us, single users, etc., but corporate environment, and I would imagine if individual users are having so many issues, I can imagine the corporate users demand a very large slice of tech time, and this is likely part of the cause of the lack of personal support that is often mentioned regarding HDS.

I understand your thoughts and the frustrations of many users, and from what I have read in the past on their own forums, their tech support is truly lacking to the individual users from what I have read over the last year. No doubt their is a growing list of folks having problems. Many promises with little result since v 10 release. It is strange, that this software not too long ago was touted as the best thing since sliced bread, but it sure has fallen out of favor over the last year or so. Thanks for your thoughts Barry.

I would hope that HDS would address the issues, but I tend to think their focus is on corporate and I do not see that changing any time soon. If that is indeed the case, I think perhaps their gold support program gave a false sense of support at least from comments I have read. Have a good day Barry.

Jim

 

chkdsk was mentioned earlier as often causing problems and making things worse in these sorts of situations by jumping in automatically and adjusting things when it doesn't have the full picture.
To disable chkdsk see here and read post 22 by SHANTHAMURTHY April 14th 2011
This is for Windows 7, I'm not sure about 8 etc.

 

Thanks for your comments.

Just to be clear, though I was an Rx user for years (from 2009 to beginning of 2013 when I switched to AX64) I never had an issue myself,,,,but then I never installed version 10 as I saw what it was doing to other users.

Its just that I have always found their marketing to be at a min, very misleading, some would saw that its outright false advertising. So I suspect that there would be merit to a lawsuit. It does not matter who their main clients are, they market to all (check out the claims on their home page) and many have suffered because they believed the hype. You cannot state in bold print that you are guaranteed to be able to restore to a previous point in time regardless of the problem, and then, in small print say that you did not really mean it. The folks who got burned should get compensation IMO and HDS should be put out of business.

 

HDS failed to go the full length and protect against Windows and CHKDSK from making changes outside of RBRX.

Also of note, I didn't see anything about HDS saying RBRX protects against modification via boot disc or hardware failures, i.e. a crashed disk. Or not.

On the other hand, the HDS website as of 5/19/2014, says:
"Reverse any system crash (even if Windows can't startup)"
http://www.horizondatasys.com/en/system_restore_software.ihtml
Any system crash means any system crash. I mean what other interpretation is there?
I didn't see any fine print on the website saying otherwise, as of 5/19/2014.

Without a sector-by-sector backup image, relying on RBRX to get you out of a jam is deadly to your data.

 

EXACTLY - sounds bullet proof to me ------- but it ain't.

 

http://horizondatasys.com/en/white_paper.aspx
Gotta love the **** they spew forth.

They classify traditional imaging and backup solutions as something they call SCSS (static complete system solutions). This SCSS category is early on the PC Maintenance path. This implies backups are outmoded, backward, primitive. They even list Backup as a partial solution.

That's funny. A backup is a complete solution. Just as you have to put gas in the car or charge up an electric model, you have to do backups on your PC. The PC is really a kludge of standards and specifications partially refined over the years. And thus it is prone to crashes - especially today with all the bloated code and constant changes through updates and all that.

It's ironic isn't it? ..That an old-school and downright primitive sector-by-sector backup can save a crashed RBRX system!

To be fair I personally believe that RBRX shines in some areas like testing, benchmarks, software evaluation, development environments, pc repair, virus removal, that kind of thing. What I would like to see is the RBRX kernel implemented in firmware in a future SSD or a mainboard's BIOS. This whole disk remapping and snapshotting business could then be made impenetrable and no boot discs or windows could affect anything. Because right now there are too many ways around the code. You could have dedicated high-reliability memory for the snapshot maps. And SSD's, like for many things, are natural for this type of activity.

What I was surprised they didn't mention is the use of VMs. What happened? Did they all of a sudden go extinct?

 

All they would have to do, really, is recommend Rx users image on a regular basis "just in case". Thats it, but that would undermine their hype and cant have that, might cost a sale,,,,,and would save folks asses.

Personally I love the part about protecting against hardware failure, how the heck is it supposed to do that with the snapshots having to reside on the protected drive. An outright lie? Ya think!!!!

 

Actually, you can be sure they WILL do that... as soon as "Drive Cloner v6" (their imaging tool) is Rollback-ready (4th quarter this year... or is that next year, or maybe 2018 ). Whenever they get this beast done they will sing your above "You should always image" in the highest notes they can.

The even bigger problem I see is "custom" builds for individuals. As was mentioned earlier, their hutzpah lies in the area of CORPORATE support... why? Because in that environment lies literally thousands of machines built to the same hardware specification, a fabulous opportunity on HDS part to troubleshoot ONE configuration and produce 10000s of license sales. In the general user arena they need to troubleshoot 1000s of configurations for 1000s of licenses... not much yield there.

I have no idea how they support CUSTOM builds... it seems impossible. I know hey do this 'cause they've done it for me as well as others I've worked with along the way. You work with their support people and eventually they come up with a fix (most of the time) and deliver it to you, but it's a custom fix just for your configuration. Now merrily we roll along with our "fixed" configuration until an update becomes available. We run out and do the update and, VOILA... problems. Why? 'Cause the general public offering doesn't contain any of the custom fixes that exist in my configuration's image specifically for me. I've already seen this happen a number of times. Their approach to custom fixes is to get that user fixed ASAP (if they can even do that)... we'll worry about the next problem down the way.

In my personal case it was discovered that the BOOT loader I use was incompatible with RBrx's special MBR and sub-Console code. They told me my loader was faulty and I shouldn't have been wrecking their sub-console design. I had to remind them that there was no such thing as RBrx being the only guy allowed in the MBR and external loader areas... that area was the Wild West show. I showed them that the BOOT loader I was using met the specifications of that area of a machine and that their approach to MBR modification and external BOOT loading had to be modified to accommodate it. Eventually they agreed and fixed their loader approach. Luckily for them, this fix was very helpful to their general release and eventually it was incorporated... a win for everybody, I guess. And indeed, this was a v10.x issue, not v9.x.

My big question remains... how the hell do you support individual CUSTOM configurations with a tool like that?